Page 147 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 147
i. ž. žagar ■ slovenian experience with rhetoric in primary schools
ence between persuasion and argument, the distinction between good
and bad arguments, the elements of good argumentation, and (if time
and interest allow for it) incorrect argumentative procedures on the oth-
er.
And finally, the rationale (ibid., p. 2):
Teaching rhetoric in Grade 9 is not an end in itself; above all, it should
teach pupils to independently, coherently and critically form and express
their opinions in other subjects in the course of further education as well
as in all (other) areas of social and private life.
Now, looking 20 years back, this is quite a program, very tradition-
al and classic, but also very ambitious and (probably) too packed. If I am
completely sincere, now, after 20 years, I see the program as so complex
that even my university students would not be able to master it completely.
Such an evaluation is, of course, only possible after 15 years of expe-
rience and practice, but why is that, why does the syllabus seem so ambi-
tious from a chronological perspective?
First of all because initially it was meant for the last three years of
the primary school: the 7th, 8th and 9th grade. But, according to the offi-
cial procedure, after it was finished and before it was approved by the Spe-
cial Council for General Education, the syllabus had to be evaluated by
developmental psychologists. And their judgment was that the contents
presented (and required) in the syllabus for rhetoric were too difficult, i.e.
too abstract and too demanding for the pupils in the 7th and 8th grade
– therefore they assigned it only to the last, the 9th grade. Consequent-
ly, to rhetoric as a compulsory elective subject, 32 lessons (of 45 minutes)
a year were assigned, or 1 lesson a week. Just for comparison: at the uni-
versity level, for a similar syllabus, we have 30 hours of lectures, 15 hours
of seminar work and 30 hours of exercises. It was, therefore, obvious from
the very beginning, that some of the content will have to be left out (more
about that as I go on).
These were our general objectives, what about the operative objec-
tives? Within operative objectives, we postulated 8 functional and 2 ed-
ucational objectives. If we start with educational objectives (ibid., p. 2):
1) Pupils learn to perform in public and express their points of view.
2) Pupils learn successful persuasion and argumentation.
In a nutshell, these were the basic demands and goals of rhetorical
education in ancient Athens: to educate an active citizen. An active citi-
zen in those unique times of direct democracy meant a person that could
145
ence between persuasion and argument, the distinction between good
and bad arguments, the elements of good argumentation, and (if time
and interest allow for it) incorrect argumentative procedures on the oth-
er.
And finally, the rationale (ibid., p. 2):
Teaching rhetoric in Grade 9 is not an end in itself; above all, it should
teach pupils to independently, coherently and critically form and express
their opinions in other subjects in the course of further education as well
as in all (other) areas of social and private life.
Now, looking 20 years back, this is quite a program, very tradition-
al and classic, but also very ambitious and (probably) too packed. If I am
completely sincere, now, after 20 years, I see the program as so complex
that even my university students would not be able to master it completely.
Such an evaluation is, of course, only possible after 15 years of expe-
rience and practice, but why is that, why does the syllabus seem so ambi-
tious from a chronological perspective?
First of all because initially it was meant for the last three years of
the primary school: the 7th, 8th and 9th grade. But, according to the offi-
cial procedure, after it was finished and before it was approved by the Spe-
cial Council for General Education, the syllabus had to be evaluated by
developmental psychologists. And their judgment was that the contents
presented (and required) in the syllabus for rhetoric were too difficult, i.e.
too abstract and too demanding for the pupils in the 7th and 8th grade
– therefore they assigned it only to the last, the 9th grade. Consequent-
ly, to rhetoric as a compulsory elective subject, 32 lessons (of 45 minutes)
a year were assigned, or 1 lesson a week. Just for comparison: at the uni-
versity level, for a similar syllabus, we have 30 hours of lectures, 15 hours
of seminar work and 30 hours of exercises. It was, therefore, obvious from
the very beginning, that some of the content will have to be left out (more
about that as I go on).
These were our general objectives, what about the operative objec-
tives? Within operative objectives, we postulated 8 functional and 2 ed-
ucational objectives. If we start with educational objectives (ibid., p. 2):
1) Pupils learn to perform in public and express their points of view.
2) Pupils learn successful persuasion and argumentation.
In a nutshell, these were the basic demands and goals of rhetorical
education in ancient Athens: to educate an active citizen. An active citi-
zen in those unique times of direct democracy meant a person that could
145
